Inalienable rights, founded upon the principles of Natural Law and natural justice, offer us a potential solution to the COVID coup d’état, or pseudopandemic as I call it. Exercising our inalienable rights, in observance of Natural Law, and collectively acting in peace to undermine the objectives of the conspirators, is the best way to resist it.
The objective of the global public-private partnership of stakeholder capitalists, and their government agents, is to establish centralised global control. If our intention is to resist the imposition of this new world order the solution will not be found in any other form of centralised control. We must construct a society based upon decentralised freedom.
I have challenged the official COVID narrative. However, as many have pointed out to me, quite forcefully on occasion, it is easy to criticise. So here I offer a suggested remedy.
This is my opinion, I am sure there are many alternative ways to peaceably resist and we should use any and all. However, as yet, I haven’t heard any political theory that makes more sense to me than the one I am about to suggest. I do not claim any great insight or knowledge. I claim nothing other than my inalienable right to speak freely.
Freedom is the unrestricted freedom to exercise our inalienable rights. It is the freedom to do all that is right whenever or wherever we choose. No one on this Earth has the authority to deny, remove or redefine any of our inalienable rights. They are immutable and ours from birth.
Freedom is not the freedom to cause harm or loss to another human being. Freedom, based upon inalienable rights, places a duty upon each and every one of us to act responsibly. Inalienable rights not only demand that we respect the rights of others but that we defend them without hesitation.
Stop Voting For Our Enslavement
If we want to live free of the technocratic, neofeudal dictatorship that is being erected around us it is a fools errand to appeal to our so called political leaders. They are the bought and paid for lackeys of the tyrants.
Nor can we realistically expect systemic reform. So called representative democracies are so corrupt, so utterly subservient to the will of the stakeholder capitalists that they are beyond salvation.
We need true democracy, and that will only come when randomly selected peoples’ juries have the supreme power to annul any and all legislation. The current party political sham, masquerading as government of the people, while serving nothing and no one but the malevolent agenda of its corporate paymasters, is irretrievable.
A parliament of party members ensures a legislature loyal to political parties and the stakeholder capitalists who bankroll them, not the people who “elect” their representatives. A better model would be a constitutional Parliament of independent, elected parliamentarians with no party affiliation. This may increase the likelihood that they would represent the interests of their constituents at least.
However, while this makes political corruption marginally more difficult it does little to stop it. We would still face the prospect of electing our own criminal aristocracy. Fortunately, there are, in my view, better options. These require a radical rethink of the way we order our society and operate democracy.
Such a radical transformation is already underway. It is not led by and does not serve the people. It is a technocracy managed and manipulated by stakeholder capitalists, globalist thinks tanks, inappropriately named non governmental organisations and philanthropic foundations.
The facade of democracy is maintained by “elected” governments. Their primary role is to foster the illusion of democratic accountability while forcing the policies of stakeholders upon us.
This is the system we periodically vote for. In this alleged democracy an election is the ceremonial anointment of the next batch of corporate stooges. Every time we cast our vote we legitimise it, nominally empowering the stakeholder capitalists to enforce the policies that benefit them, not us.
Petitioning the judiciary, which is permitted to exist in this system, is equally futile. Court justice has become an archaic tradition, no longer practiced. There are undoubtedly some honourable benches remaining, but any just decision they make in favour of the people will be overturned by the venal higher courts.
The solution will neither emanate from nor ever reside within the current representative democratic structure. Any time or energy expended on trying to salvage it is wasted.
We perpetuate our own subjugation with our votes. The first thing we should do is stop voting for our enslavement. This may be a token gesture, but at the very least we should let the stakeholder capitalists know that we do not consent to their mendacious system.
Don’t Play Their Game
Nor can we indulge in the revolutionary fantasies of wannabee hard-nuts and ideologically driven insurrectionists. They merely seek to stamp their authority on the system and to lead us into their half-baked vision of a new realpolitik, cobbled together from all the previously failed, and occasionally lethal, political project disasters of the past.
The notion of violent revolution is folly of the most absurd kind. Not only would it lead to the totally unnecessary deaths of thousands, possibly millions, the system we currently tolerate is built upon claimed right to exercise force. The stakeholder capitalists have all the military and policy weapons they need to meet any violence with an overwhelming response.
If we ever initiate the use of force ourselves we would give away the moral ground we currently hold. We would provide the stakeholder capitalists their casus belli and lose any possible tactical or political advantage. They have used false flag attacks throughout history to justify their violence. We must be very watchful for the next.
We should note that Swiss intelligence agencies are already warning of attacks on vaccine distribution infrastructure. Reporting how devastating they will be, despite admitting they have “no tangible indications of planned attacks.”
How incredibly convenient for the authoritarians who seek to criminalise anyone who questions their COVID vaccine program. Any such “attacks” should be treated with immense scepticism and the evidence pointing to the alleged perpetrators scrupulously examined by everyone.
Violence truly is the language of the oppressor. We are under attack and we have the right to defend ourselves but that doesn’t justify unbridled stupidity. Initiation of the violent use of force is both morally indefensible and counterproductive.
We cannot look to the authority of any leader and expect anything but oppression in return. That is the nature of the non-existent, claimed right of authority.
Any brief reprieve the from despotism would be welcome, but there are no political leaders anywhere who can alter the course we are on. Desperately hoping for a saviour or believing we can vote our way out of this, is monumentally naive. Acceptance of the authority of leaders has brought us to this point. As it has repeatedly throughout human history.
The Solution No One Wants To Hear
We must build something better. That is the only true solution. It is just that it is not the solution most people want to hear.
People expect authority to tell them what to do, what to say, where to go and what to think. They have been conditioned to accept this and learned helplessness is the result.
People live apathetic lives, labouring under the illusion that they cannot “change anything.” They actually believe that they need to devolve their individual responsibility to trusted authorities. They do so in the unavailing hope that some benevolent State parent will care for them while they get on with their normal, everyday lives, imagining themselves to be free.
We can and we must take responsibility for everything ourselves. If anyone imagines that they can give away their individual autonomy and their own agency to some unimpeachable custodian who will nurture them, in exchange for their electoral devotion, they are deluding themselves.
We can no longer afford these illusions. We have to face facts. We are not children.
The State (governments in partnership with stakeholders) is intent upon farming us. It demands that we give it our authority so its henchmen and women can do as they wilt. The State has now established multiple control systems which are coalescing to enslave us. These are going operational right now.
No one is going to rescue us. There aren’t any allied forces amassing on any borders ready to liberate us from the yoke of totalitarianism. If we want to defend ourselves and our families, we have to do it.
We must take full responsibility for ourselves and each other. We must build new decentralised systems of communication, exchange and commerce. We will need a new justice system, a new healthcare system, social care and more.
It is undoubtedly a daunting proposition, perhaps it sounds like an infeasible daydream. If there is a better solution that would be fantastic, but what is it? Time is running out.
The State Hasn’t Won Yet
The State, with its new surveillance and control mechanisms, will fiercely oppose any attempt to break away from its clutches. However, if we remain lawful and peaceable, if we build and don’t destroy, if we maximise the use of what dwindling freedoms and resources we have left, then the only recourse we leave our oppressors is naked, raw violence. It doesn’t mean they won’t resort to it but “everyone” will see it.
Those of us who oppose the COVID coup d’état are in the minority. The State has invested billions in propaganda. Public opinion still matters to them.
They are not yet at the stage where they can simply beat law abiding, peaceful people to a pulp en masse and expect their project to succeed. Equally we cannot embark on the construction of a better society without acknowledging that painful sacrifices will have to be made.
We have another advantage. The tools we need to set about building something better already exist. Here in the UK, while it remains unknown to most people, we have a codified, written constitution. It offers us a path towards lawful remedy and we should use it.
We also have Natural Law and our inalienable rights. We should not ask for them to be respected, we should unequivocally demand that they are.
Inalienable Rights Not Human Rights
Inalienable rights are not “human rights.” We live in a global political system that has persistently attempted to define our rights in terms of these alleged human rights. We must reject this fraud.
These are declared in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights (UNDHR.) It lists a number of venerable humanitarian principles such as Article 1: Innate Freedom and Equality:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights..”
We are constantly told by our political leaders that they act with respect to our human rights and that they “protect” them. This means that they assume the authority to completely ignore all of our so called rights whenever they choose. Article 29 of the UNHDR states:
“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law… and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society… “
Legislation (a form of law) is set by the State. It can limit our freedoms and will judge what it deems to be moral. The State will decree what constitutes “public order” and it will determine which of our human rights need to be ignored for the “general welfare” of society: A “society” which it defines.
The UNDHR is the United Nations (UN) attempt formalise a system of behavioural permits, but member state governments would never have agreed to them were they not free to ignore human rights on an individual, national basis. Hence Article 29.
However, in the preamble to the UNDHR, the UN briefly acknowledges the entirely different concept of inalienable rights:
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..”
Recognition that inalienable rights are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” is as far as the UN go. That recognition is also something we can and should use.
The UN then created the UNDHR to exclude the concept entirely from the “law” of their member states. Inalienable rights aren’t even mentioned in the declaration itself but they are acknowledged, at a global political level.
The US Declaration of Independence also recognises inalienable (or unalienable) rights:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it.”
It is clear that the State acknowledges that inalienable rights are “self evident.” Yet, when the government authorities formulate their laws and declarations of principle they seemingly go to great lengths to avoid any further acknowledgement of inalienable rights. They have replaced the “foundation of freedom in the world” with meaningless human rights.
Just like the UNHDR, there is no mention of “unalienable” rights in the US Bill of Rights (constitutional amendments) nor the written Constitution. For example, the 4th Amendment announces:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.. “
In other words, the State claims a “right” to judge what it considers to be “reasonable.” Based upon its opinion, it can break into our homes, seize us and our goods, simply because it asserts that it has “probable cause.” This is the inevitable consequence of a system of government that hides from inalienable rights and instead bases its rules (legislation – law) upon its deceptive construct of human rights.
Observance of human rights guarantee that the State can force us to do whatever it likes. Adherence to the principle of inalienable rights rules out that possibility.
The “legal” definition of inalienable rights reads:
“The term given to the fundamental rights accorded to all people.”
Inalienable rights, from a legal perspective, are the equal rights of ALL human beings. There are no exceptions.
No one has more inalienable rights than anyone else. High office, or a government issued badge, doesn’t afford any additional inalienable rights.
None of us have the inalienable right to order anyone else to do as we command. The State claims that it derives its authority from us. Yet we never had this right in the first place. How can we possibly devolve our authority to the State if it never existed?
The State alleges it has this additional right, to license our behaviour, and calls this its authority. In doing so it rejects inalienable rights and, by its own admission and “legal” system, the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It can only achieve this confidence trick through deception and our ignorance.
The State is pathologically allergic to inalienable rights precisely because they are universal, immutable and absolute. We are sold fraudulent human rights because they allow the State to peddle its myth of authority. What’s worse, State authority only works in practice because we have been convinced to believe in this fiction.
State authority is nothing more than our faith in a lie. The moment we stop believing in it, it vanishes. All the State has left after that is brute force. In truth, that is all it ever had.
We should not give any credence to claims of imaginary rights. We should use reason and robustly reject the State’s preposterous assertions.
Equally we need to rid ourselves of our own delusions. We cannot both maintain the belief that we elect governments which serve us while simultaneously acquiescing to every demand they make for fear of punishment if we don’t. This is a nonsensical position.
Therefore it is crucial that we fully understand what inalienable rights are. Especially if they are the hill we are going to die on.
There is No Law Above Natural Law
In 1882 Lysander Spooner wrote Natural Law; or The Science of Natural Justice. In it he explained why there is only one Universal Law that governs our relationships. Natural Law stands above all others.
Natural Law was not created by men and women and it cannot be altered, denied or evaded by any human being, claimed authority or State. It defines the nature of our interactions and even how we judge our own character.
As Natural Law is a phenomena that exists in nature it can be studied like any other. Understanding Natural Law is, as Spooner wrote, the science of natural justice.
How do we live in peace? What rules determine how we maintain peace between each other? It is “self evident” that we can and do live peacefully but do we only do so because some higher “authority” will punish us if we don’t. Or do we all innately understand the unwritten Law that binds us within our corner of society?
Is there a common set of principles which we all understand, regardless of the jurisdiction we live in? Is there a Universal Law which establishes the boundaries of our behaviour, enabling us to live in peace and harmony?
Of course there is, if there were not humanity would not have survived. This is Natural Law and Spooner described it:
“Each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.. each man shall abstain from doing to another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.. So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.”
Natural Law is our foundational morality and natural justice are the ethics that emerge from it. It is in our nature to know this because it is discernible through reason, which is the defining character of our nature.
There are many attributes which we deem to be “good” or “bad.” The selfless and compassionate are considered to be “good,” the selfish and callous “bad.” Yet regardless of the value judgments we place on the actions of others, if they act in accordance with Natural Law we can still live in peace alongside them. It is not a matter of being good or bad, it is a matter of doing either that which is right or wrong, as determined by Natural Law.
If we harm or cause loss to another, or act dishonestly in contracts, then we have committed a wrong. Others around us will recognise that we had “no right” to perpetrate that act. However, whatever we do that is not wrong is a right. We may not like what someone said or did but, if they caused neither harm nor loss to anyone else, they had every “right” to act or speak freely.
This sense of natural justice, of understanding and differentiating between what is right and what is wrong, operates in every play ground. Children must grasp Natural Law quickly or they will fail to build the relationships they need in order to thrive. Children come to understand this Law even before they have the words to express themselves.
If children can live in peace, without any comprehension of man made law or legislation, adults certainly can. Yet we have seemingly forgotten this.
Instead we imagine that justice is handed down to us by governments or the judiciary. We wrongly assume that without their rules we would have no Law and would be incapable of peaceful coexistence.
Natural Law governs our relationships, it is the Law that enables us to cohabit, work together, achieve common goals and find value in each other. It exists regardless of the lesser laws prescribed by men and women.
We did not create Natural Law and have no ability to amend it. It endures in nature. It is a principle of nature which defines us as a species.
All living creatures are subject to Natural Law. It is the universal rules based system. It determines the conduct required for social complexity to function. Just as termites use Natural Law to cooperate to build their remarkable structures, so we use Natural Law to live peacefully in communities.
As we did not create Natural Law it leads many to call it God’s Law. Theological arguments aside, there is no reason to think that the processes which formed Natural Law differ from those which formed, for example, the planets or gravity.
Some will say that these could not exist without an interventionist god or some other supernatural guidance. The legal definition of Natural Law makes this claim. Others will point toward probability in an infinite universe of interacting forces. This is a matter for debate, but it does not alter the nature of the subject in question. Planets and a force we call gravity exist in reality, as does Natural Law.
Justice is real. We all know what it is and have even invented a word to describe it. It is the restoration of right when a wrong has been committed. The concepts of right and wrong also exist in reality. If they did not then the words we use to describe them would be meaningless.
Words like “mine” and “yours” or “fair” and “unfair” would have no context. You cannot possess something unless you have the right to claim it as your own, no act can be principled if there is no concept of justice or injustice by which to appraise it. In fact, none of the laws created by men and women, or positive law, could ever have been formed unless they were preceded by Natural Law.
How could theft ever have been considered a “wrongdoing” if natural justice didn’t already exist? If natural justice didn’t predate the laws of men and women then taking something that does not belong to you could never have been identified by anyone as either just or unjust.
We would have been incapable of perceiving an act like theft without innately understanding natural justice. We certainly wouldn’t have written positive laws to seek recourse from thieves. Without Natural Law “theft” would merely be the movement of something in a chaotic void of immaterial behaviours.
Natural Law is the universal law of everything and, just like anything that occurs in nature, we can study it, understand it and, because we are human beings with the ability to reason, formalise it into a compendium of determining principles. Those who transgress against Natural Law can be judged against it and, as Spooner noted, we have a duty to do so.
A society founded in Natural Law would be built around the maxim “to live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.” In order to “live honestly” no one can pretend that they are disinterested in dishonesty, especially where it causes harm or loss. A disregard for wrongdoing would be negligent, effectively condoning harmful behaviour.
As Natural Law is universal, absolute and immutable, and all are afforded equal rights and responsibilities under it, to fail to lawfully prosecute wrongdoing would be to disregard Natural Law. This negligence is, in and of itself, a harmful act. The duty, to bring wrongdoers to natural justice, should best be discharged through jury led trials.
True Democracy (demos – kratos)
Inalienable rights stem from Natural Law. Whatever we do or say, that is not wrong under Natural Law, is our inalienable right. The only limit on exercising our inalienable rights is that we live honestly and cause no harm or loss to anyone else. As inalienable rights are derived from Natural law they too predate man made law and are universal, absolute and immutable.
No one, no organisation, no authority or the State can force us to do anything against our will while we remain “honest.” If we are not causing any harm or loss to anyone else then there is not a single “authority” on Earth that can “lawfully” initiate the use of force or otherwise compel us to do anything.
A society constructed upon inalienable rights must, by definition, be a voluntary society. As no one, or no body claiming authority which doesn’t exist, can lawfully coerce, compel, deceive or otherwise force either our agreement or action. All our interactions can only be entered into freely and we can withdraw our consent whenever we choose.
That is the power of our inalienable rights. We cannot possibly be ruled by diktat if we insist our inalienable rights are observed. Those who refuse to observe our inalienable rights must concede that they reject the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
It is worth noting what a real jury led trial is, because they are not part of the current judicial system. If we want to build a world based upon our inalienable rights, then natural justice, ruled upon and administered solely by a jury of our peers, not judges, is essential.
Following the 1670 case of The King v Penn and Mead the foreman of the jury Edward Bushel, after a brief imprisonment for declining to find the defendants guilty, subsequently refused to pay the imposed court fine and presented his appeal case to the Court of Common Pleas. In his eventual ruling, upholding Bushel’s appeal, Chief Justice John Vaughan stated:
“The jury must be independently and indisputably responsible for its verdict free from any threats from the court.”
In a court of Natural Law the judge will merely be the convener. Their only role to guide the jury on the technical aspect of the law. They will not instruct, coerce or in any other way influence or interfere with either the deliberation or judgement of the jury.
The jury will be entirely antonymous and they must agree unanimously both upon a verdict and the appropriate punishment. They will then instruct the judge (or convener) to pass the sentence they have ruled upon.
Natural Law is easy to understand and simple to administer. The only question, in fact the only crime, is the direct causation of genuine harm or loss or dishonourable conduct in a contract (dishonesty.)
As beings imbued with reason it is a straightforward task for us to decide if harm or loss was caused. Within a real system of jury led trials we can be more confident, not less, that natural justice will be delivered.
The jury must be satisfied that real injury or loss resulted directly from the actions or speech of the person accused. Merely offending someone does not cause real harm. Expressing disagreeable opinions or refusing to comply with an unreasonable order does not cause legitimate harm or loss.
The 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill drew a clear distinction between legitimate and illegitimate harm. Mill was particularly concerned with freedom of speech and, in his work On Liberty, he illustrated where “free speech” could cause of legitimate harm:
“Opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corndealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard”
The real world impact of our actions would be the context within which all jury led rulings would be made. That stands in stark contrast to the pernicious corporate owned, corrupt judicial system we are presently forced to endure.
The cases of people like David Noakes & Lyn Thyer, Ross Ulbricht, Julian Assange and Craig Murray are just some, among countless thousands around the world, where court justice is notable only for it complete absence. Too often, what we incomprehensibly refer to as the justice system acts as a weapon wielded by stakeholder capitalists, and the governments which serve them, to enforce their malevolent, impossible claim of authority upon us.
During David Noakes’ UK trial Judge Nicholas Loraine Smith advised the jury that the court was not a court of morality but rather a court of law. Law without morality is not justice, it is oppression.
In a jury led court of Natural Law the only consideration would be the harm or loss caused, without which there could be no possible crime. The opinion of the judge (convenor) and the technical demands of legislation would be irrelevant.
In refusing to find the defendant guilty, regardless of legislative edicts, the jury would find the positive law to be an ass. As it so obviously is in every legal disgrace inflicted upon us.
In this better world of Natural Law and natural justice, legislation which is found to cause harm would be annulled by a jury of the people. Any legislation, such as the 1939 Cancer Act, which effectively exists purely to protect the monopoly of pharmaceutical corporations and their cancer market, would be found to cause harm and be annulled by a jury.
This is true demos – kratos (people – rule) where the people, randomly selected (by lot), form the supreme rule of law. Standing above all as the final arbiters of natural justice.
In such a system bribing useful authoritarian idiots would be a waste of time. Any legislation they passed to protect and promote the interests of their stakeholder capitalist controllers, or any malign force seeking to impose its will, would be overruled by the people wherever it was judged to cause harm or loss, in contravention of natural justice.
Get Real
In 1982 Murray Rothbard published The Ethics of Liberty. He deduced that the positive law of any society can emerge from just three sources. It can be founded upon custom and tradition, State diktat or be based upon reason and Natural Law.
We are hurtling towards a State dictatorship. The solution is for us to refuse to accept anything less than absolute observance of our inalienable rights.
We must insist that Natural Law is the only foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world; we must affirm that natural justice is the inalienable right of all people, equally, without exception; we must demand that no positive law can remain unless it is judged reasonable, not by the State or any other body that claims the non existent right of authority, but by the people, either through trial by jury or, wherever harm is apparent, through a grand jury convened; we won’t accept any jury selection, save by random lot drawn from all people with capacity, and we proclaim that a jury of the people is the highest court in the land and the supreme arbiter of Natural Law which is the whole of the law.
We must be relentless in pursuit of this objective and accept nothing short of our inalienable right to live in peace and freedom. Freedom will be defined as the freedom to exercise our inalienable rights and no attempt to deny our freedom or rights will be tolerated.
Any and all who use force, coercion, deception, bribery or any other means in an attempt to falsely assert that they possess the mythical right of authority will be held accountable for their dishonesty, and any harm or loss they have caused, by a free jury of their peers.
We must build this better society ourselves. We must live in peace as if we are free, in accordance with Natural Law, observing natural justice and exercising our inalienable rights, until we truly are free. As Rothbard observed:
“Natural law is, in essence, a profoundly ‘radical’ ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.”
The State has invested everything in the technocracy it is stamping into existence. It will not sit idle while we embark on a course that poses a potentially powerful threat to the status quo. We can anticipate that the State will use all the means at its disposal to stop us from creating freedom, justice and peace. Constructing a better world will be arduous and dangerous.
The “do nothing” alternative will condemn us and future generation to the abject, totalitarian tyranny of a global technate. Those who go along with the new world order, hoping all will be fine, will suffer nonetheless.
There is nothing humanitarian about this project. Quite the opposite. Those of us who oppose it ultimately have nothing to lose and literally everything to gain.
We must strive for something better and we must act now to begin that effort. However, we need to act wisely, with guile, as we work towards our objective of peace and freedom. There is nothing so pointless or disheartening as a symbolic sacrifice, soon forgotten.
We must get real. We should avoid falling into the trap of the all or nothing mindset. We aren’t going win a decisive victory any time soon. This will almost certainly be a generational struggle.
Our aim should never be to topple the State, it is a completely impractical proposition. Our aim should be to encourage the evolution of society through the example we set. It is hopelessly unrealistic to think we can muster a single political assault that will both overcome the entire apparatus of the State and simultaneously win over the hearts and minds of the brainwashed masses.
Creating a peaceful, free society will have to occur in the margins initially. We need to form a parallel society of free people and the decentralised systems we build will need to respond and adapt as they come under attack from the State.
First and foremost we have to survive. There is absolutely no chance of us building anything better if we aren’t around to do it. While we support each other to maximise our non compliance with the “unlawful” demands of the State, there will be occasions where we have to comply.
If your elderly parents lives abroad, becomes seriously ill and need you, what are you going to do? Stand on your principles, refuse the test and leave them to struggle alone? There are many situation one might envisage where some degree of compliance will, unfortunately, be unavoidable. However if our mindful intention is to keep this to an absolute minimum we will be on the right track.
Our purpose should be to show as many people as possible that a society based upon inalienable rights and natural justice is preferable to the one they are trapped in. The centralised authority of the State won’t suddenly disappear. However, if our numbers grow, it will slowly evaporate.
We should use every possible peaceable means to achieve this by encouraging as many as possible to join us. Wherever the State punish and marginalise people we will support and embrace them. If they deny peoples inalienable rights we will fight for them. When they abandon people we will offer them comradeship.
We will have to adapt to the tyranny of the State as it unfolds. For example, when the UK State enacts its Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (currently at the Bill stage) and lawful protest is effectively outlawed, we will have to be creative and seek new ways to protest. Similarly when they deploy their imminent Online Safety Act (also a current Bill) and attempt to remove freedom of speech online, we will outwit them and create alternative means of communication.
It won’t always be possible to stay within the “legal” limits of the State’s dictatorship. Which makes it even more important to act “lawfully,” in accord with Natural Law and our inalienable rights, prior to the inevitable arrests and subsequent trials.
State tyranny means we are forced to live in an unjust system. By scrupulously maintaining our ethical commitment to natural justice the unlawful nature of the State can be exposed, especially if we use all available legal means to attempt to secure a trial by jury.
Non compliance doesn’t just mean refusing the State’s test, jabs or its apps. We must stop using as much of the State system as possible and start using our own.
The State relies on propaganda so stop buying it. We should refuse to pay for its TV license or buy anything produced by its mainstream media propaganda machine. Instead support independent media and promote it wherever we can.
The global public – private – partnership of stakeholder capitalists is essentially corporate and the COVID coup d’état has created a corporate led technocracy. Therefore we need to choose carefully how we spend our money. While practically impossible to avoid entirely, we should keep our transactions with global corporations to an absolute minimum.
The coup has also attacked local and small to medium size businesses. Therefore we should buy what we need from them as far as possible.
We must abandon our obsession with convenience. Instead of popping to the supermarket, we should make the effort to buy our food from local, independent farmers markets or other small businesses. Let’s reinvigorate the high street.
One of the primary drivers for the coup d’état was the creation of a new international monetary and financial system. The intention is to force us all to use Central Bank Digital Currency. This “programmable money” will give central banks complete control over every aspect of our lives. Able to control every CBDC transaction, the central bank’s algorithms will dictate what we can or cannot buy.
We must comprehensively reject CBDC and start using our own, decentralised forms of currency and exchange. This doesn’t just mean crypto-currency, although that could be part of a decentralised solution. We need to think much bigger than that. We need to be, as a community of individual sovereigns, as antonymous as possible.
We should construct local freedom cells focused upon maximising our independence from the State system. We need to understand and engage in widespread counter economics. We must grow our own food wherever possible, freely exchange goods and services among ourselves, cutting out the corporations wherever we can. We must relearn forgotten skills and crafts, we’ll need them. We should buy second hand where we can and, where we can’t, only use cash.
In short, we must re-prioritise. The things we do every day truly matter. The entire State technocracy is predicated upon exploiting us for the benefit of stakeholder capitalists. The COVID coup d’état was designed to enslave us to that exploitative system. The purpose of the propaganda we have been deluged under is to force us to live in fear and accept the State technocracy as the only solution.
It is obvious, from the actions of the State, that it needs us far more than we need it. We can build a global society without the State. We do not need to fight it or change it. We need to ignore it and build something better. We need to engage in evolution not revolution.
A world based upon Natural Law, natural justice and the freedom to exercise our inalienable rights will enable that evolution. We must steel ourselves to the task of creating freedom, justice and peace in the world.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Very interesting and thought provoking, as usual! 🙂 One query; the Magna Carta ( according to your bolded quote from it in the linked article ) doesn’t say we have right to jury of peers, it says that noone can be condemned etc unless by jury of peers ***or*** “law of the land”. And my reaction, increasingly, as I made my way through the piece, was that if “natural law” is so natural why or how is it that it has been increasingly widely/systemically subjugated by corruption, injustice, etc? Why or how is it that people have handed over their liberty etc to external centralised “authorities” such that “natural law” no longer rules us? And this has been happening for as long as humans have grown crops, built permanent houses, etc, ie since the Neolithic Revolution. Yes, I agree that there seems to be a “natural law” for groups of humans of a certain size, living in pre-Neolithic harmony with nature, which persists at the small scale local and relatively unofficial/informal levels of human society, but I think that a different natural law came into existence/effect when humans began to grow crops, requiring fencing/protection, storage facilities, etc and the permanent housing to go with those fields and barns, etc etc etc, when in fact humans, some of them at least, became intoxicated by “power over” nature, by surplus, possibly by the very nature ( chemical ) of the crops themselves, ( the newly mutated wild grass plant, wheat + rye + barley ancestor, and the sticky protein gluten and its opioid ), which may have driven them to sow and water and weed and harvest, thresh, etc, efforts which would have previously seemed like unacceptable and unnecessary levels of toil … I think that “natural law” was “corrupted” then. But I’m not even sure that “corruption” is the right word to use, if it has been the foundation of civilisation … It’s another “natural law”, pertaining to a different scale or level of human activity, and the two laws are not very compatible. There are similar parallel and/or heirarchical systems in our bodies, obeying very different priorities, which don’t always get on very well, compete for resources etc. Addiction is a good example of how this incompatibility can play out. I suggest that what we see in society is like a global/species scale equivalent. You’d have to abolish/ban glutenous grains including ( less concentrated but still potent ) rice, and all the other substances that we have added to our regular diets since, compounding our addicted state, ( dairy, yeast, alcohol, sugar, coffee, salicylate stimulants/colourings, etc ), to return us to anything like our earlier state of harmony, a world without writing, money, technology, etc. I think that humans may be experiencing a particularly acute phase in the centralisation birth pangs, the shift towards being “run” by a Central Nervous System. I think that this is is just as “natural”, after all, we are still all part of the universe, consuming the products of the universe. And that we will be more like cells in a body from here on in. The age of humans as “heroes”, of great individuals, is over, they have passed away into the West. That doesn’t mean that we can’t continue, each of us, to follow the oldest natural laws to the best of our abilities; in fact we couldn’t not do so. Everyone is already following the “laws”, at all times, how could we not?
PS. Ref doing various things to slow/halt/reverse the centralisation/globalisation/authoritarian process; actions always lead to equal ( and in physics their ) opposite reactions, or in other words, actions always have unintended and unknown consequences. I tend to agree with various fictional wizards and real life “gurus” etc who have argued that it is generally wisest to do as little as possible. And that human history seems to be a tale of coming up with solutions to problems caused by previous solutions to perceived problems caused by etc etc etc. Maybe the most anti-authoritarian attitude is to not perceive any problem. 😉
Fantastic timing Iain. Thanks to pseudopandemic, I got my introduction to this vital law, then my appetite was further peaked by a Delores Cahill video on BrandNewTube (she uses her inalienable rights to travel freely unmasked).
I will devour this article and by the time you read this it will be in the hands of my friends in Australia who are experiencing what seems to be a very much further advanced extension of the way this global tyranny is progressing.
Many many thanks for your efforts in combatting this truly shocking deception.
You’re most welcome Aodh. Sadly, I think Australia is the pilot for the global tyranny.
People behind everything from past to present day
SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 THE BRITISH WAR ON CHRISTIANITY (When we write “British,” we mean self-anointed British elitists, not the British people)
THE HISTORY OF THE LAST 150 YEARS WE WERE TAUGHT HAS ALL BEEN BRITISH PROPAGANDA
In other words, history education in our lifetimes has all been British newspaper propaganda to keep us in the dark, while these demons play out their agenda for world control, culminating in current “The Great Reset.” https://tinyurl.com/ywryzfjw
Thank you Iain. Your chart in particular shows your grasp on what is a huge, shady subject for many, myself included! It’s not that I am not willing to learn, it’s just that the likes of yourself are hard to track down. Having said that, I found you and others thanks to the internet.
Thanks Alison. Finding people questioning power will only become harder as we are increasingly censored. Please make every effort to share any information you find useful. We will have to do it ourselves. The mainstream media has failed us completely and the government are dictators.
Direct democracy. Get in at the bottom but come out on top.
5 Star Direct Democracy Movement
Welcome to the website of the Five Star Direct Democracy Movement – a national organisation of people from all political backgrounds and none, dedicated to replacing the United Kingdom’s failed system of so-called “representative” democracy – a system that ignores the will of the people and transfers the nation’s wealth to a privileged few – with a system of genuine democracy, direct democracy, in which the sovereignty and control of the country’s future is transferred to the people, where it belongs.
The many are more incorruptible than the few.
Aristotle, 350 BC
https://5dd.uk/
Thanks John. I think “direct democracy” would be an improvement on “representative democracy.” But I argue that there is only one “demos – kratos” and that is natural justice administered by the people through trial by jury. While I don’t openly declare it in the article, because I did not want to have a “debate” about stateless systems, Natural Law administered by a randomly selected jury of the people would not require any form of State to exist.
PPS. I really did read your article from beginning to end, and I thought quite hard about your argument ref inalienable rights and natural law, but I think that it fails to consider that there may be more than one natural law in play since the human species began behaving in ways very unusual for a primate, growing their food and domesticating animals, etc and forming increasingly large communities, with increasingly elaborate methods of feeding and housing themselves etc. And those new behaviours seem to come with new natural laws pertaining to the large and complex structures and systems arising from them. And those systems ( organs ) etc seem to have rights of their own, which sometimes compete with those of the individual cells.
Last word! 🙂 I think that this may be ( partly at least ) what monotheistic religions were preparation for, acceptance of a cellular scale of role for each of us in a vastly larger system/”organism” whose goals/purposes etc are too long term to grasp/understand. Maybe? They certainly facilitated the development of many of the larger more complex social systems and “trained” humans in the concept of belonging to/being part of the almost unimaginably vast and it having its own kind of ( infinite ) “life” to attach to/have faith in above and beyond what seems to be real (ity) in our individual experience. I enjoy your articles very much because they make me think these things/re-examine these ideas/remind me of them.:)
Thanks Olivia for, as ever, your thoughtful and insightful comments. Ants and termites farm, and operate highly complex social structures. Which is why I alluded to them in the article. I agree completely that farming was the key technology in human evolution. It is highly significant, in my view, that the State is now centralising global control of it.
However, none of this changes the fundamental dynamic by which we interact as individuals. No matter where you live, what political system you live under, wherever people gather they always obey Natural Law to remain peaceful. Natural justice is our nature. We have created an immensely complex global civilisation. I am not suggesting in the article that we must abandon the technology or global systems of trade etc that we have developed while global civilisation (such as it is) has emerged.
What I am suggesting is that if Natural Law and natural justice should be the whole of the law. If it were, especially if the jury was the supreme arbiter of natural justice, then the enslavement that comes with our global civilisation would no longer exist.
Natural law, as described by Spooner and many others, is very simple to grasp. Cause no harm, injury or loss to others and be honest in all contracts. When juries are the supreme court, with the power to annul any and all legislation, and natural justice is their only concern, then systemic corruption would be practically impossible.
Let’s take the vaccine roll out as an example. Clearly the pharmaceutical corporations have corrupted the legislature and the regulators. They are rolling out vaccines which apparently causing harm and the regulators are not investigating anything. Yet the legislature maintain its emergency approval.
Natural Law would dictate that a jury convene to examine if harm was being caused. If the jury unanimously agreed that there was evidence that harm was being caused, as the supreme court, they would annul the legislation allowing emergency approval. There only concern being natural justice.
This would not rule out a global civilisation of the kind of complexity you have spoken about. But it would fundamentally change its priorites.
With regard to the Magna Carta (original), there is no direct mention of inalienable rights only that no one may be “stripped of his rights.” But it does demand that the “custom of the people” must be upheld. The “custom of the people” was trial by jury.
You might find this interesting: – https://iaindavis.com/the-british-constitution-deception-part-1/
Thank you, the information about the history and tenacious persistence of the constitution was very interesting. I did wonder what would happen if we lost our monarchy, seeing as the Magna Carta was a contract between the Crown and the people. But with ref your argument that the law should only use/include the “Natural Law” I think that would indeed be wonderful, personally, but that the human species has created many and various large “entities”, ( eg corporations ) which we seem to value as much as or even more than our own lives, liberty etc, with rights of their own and laws to protect them/support their continuing and “healthy”/flourishing existence, which are often at odds with the older human scale Natural Law, and would be in danger of disintegration/destruction if they did not have laws to protect them, if the law only consisted of Natural Law pertaining to ( harms to ) the individual. Laws protecting the perceived “greater good”/large scale human “entities”/endeavours/structures which infringe individual liberties etc have existed since the time of the Ten Commandments ( type of event/development ); that is perhaps precisely what was so noteworthy/revolutionary about them; that they proposed the overturning of/subjugation of the old Natural Law by new priorities. You say that we wouldn’t have to live without technology, etc .. I don’t know how long humans would remain literate etc, how long technology would last etc, if the larger scale entities were no longer protected over and above the individual human, any more than the human body would continue if each cell had inalienable rights which took precedence over the survival of the organs of heart, liver, etc. The relationship is fraught with difficulty though. How to balance the respective “rights”/welfare etc of the large and the small scale “lifeforms”? Not, I think, by always prioritising the visible short term small scale. .. perhaps because the large scale entities, if protected, will enable the survival and/or wellbeing of many many/uncountable numbers of small scale entities in the future? Vastness.
Thanks Olivia. I am fascinated by the point you have raised. Perhaps you would like to expand upon it as I am not sure I have fully understood.
I don’t see how a system of Natural Law would preclude large scale organisations or projects. One of the things that often is presented as good point of discussion on the application of Natural Law is how it would handle is compulsory purchase. Perhaps to build a rail route for example.
In Natural Law you cannot cause harm or force someone to do anything against their will. But only where that refusal does not cause harm itself.
Let’s say a new rail route to a town would bring new jobs and investment to a deprived area. In order to build it, some homes need to be demolished. The state could not simply cause harm to a home owner by ordering that they leave their home.
However, community members in the town which would benefit from the railway connection could bring a case against the home owner arguing that they are being caused ongoing harm by their refusal to sell up.
A jury would then judge if and where harm was being caused. If they found against the home owner then the harm principle would dictate that they faced no loss, other than the obvious emotional loss of losing their home.
What could never happen in this system of natural justice is that the corporation building the railway could corrupt officials to force anyone to do anything, simply in pursuit of profits. As is the current case.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers Olivia but the deeper that I explore the logic of Natural Law and natural justice the more it seems to me to be immeasurably superior to the current system we endure.
As ever, will be interested to hear your thoughts.
All the very best.
Sorry to take so long to reply. I ended up not being too sure about what I’d posted either; I found myself questioning it, something niggled. It seemed to me that , as you suggest above ref purchase orders, that perhaps there was no reason why large scale agendas should have to be protected because perhaps “simply” the small scale interests of all the individuals concerned/impacted could be examined, and if real/lasting harm would be done to anyone/two/a certain number of individuals the large scale project must be “bad”/misguided and abandoned. That would be a “good society”. … Any society in which significant lasting harm to even one/two/a certain number of people is “allowed”/justified in order to proceed with large scale projects is inhuman/evil … To individuals this must/will tend to feel true, according to the oldest most Natural Law. But I think that there really is a second increasingly powerful/important natural law, of civilisation, of groups over a certain size, of a certain level of complexity, which for millenia has been acting alongside/in jerky tandem with the oldest law, because large scale organisations are like lifeforms, have life cycles, etc. I took a term of accountancy studies a few years ago and was completely astonished by the double entry bookkeeping method, because it creates a little bubble or universe of its own for each company that uses it; a peculiar and counter-intuitively independent existence. And I wanted to return to the reference I made to addiction in my first comment; I think that so long as we continue to create large scale long term enterprises we will continue to experience the presence of “aliens” Among us, acting according to laws different to “our own”/the oldest natural law, and I think that perhaps addiction is the expression in individuals, of something similar, a conflict or “difficult relationship” between different levels of complexity and scale. We can hang on to our oldest natural law as much as we like but if/whenever we create the truly larger scale/highly complex organisations etc they will take on life and exert pressures on us/make demands on us, which will include harm/destruction.
PS. I agree with you that as individual humans it might be a good idea to increase our resilience, guided by the oldest Natural Law, because it *is* our natural law, it’s what works for us, makes ( most of us ) feel whole and heartened/stronger. We need it more, paradoxically, the more we create the larger scale and longer term “entities” with their own laws. It would probably be helpful if more people understood that the large scale orgs really are “alien”, beings almost literally in another dimension with “whom”/which we do not have to identify, should not identify. Irredeemably other. And, as you describe, get on with our lives as independently of them as possible. But like with addiction a lot of cells/people have become identified with/dependent on the activities and products of these large scale entities, as if they were their own agendas, have become intoxicated by the scale and power and rush of these aliens with their awesome powers, striding about above us. Old style home made hand made “amateur” endeavours don’t “cut it” anymore compared to the gleam/gloss/polish/cloned perfection of factory made items, music, etc. If we didn’t consume these things so avidly there would not be so many of these aliens. We create them and feed them and now depend on them; it’s as if we’ve given birth to a different species now in ambivalent symbiosis with us. I don’t know if you are familiar with the film “The Fly” by Cronenberg? At one point during his slow but tragically irreversible transformation Brundle asks his girlfriend if she had ever heard of “insect politics”, and says he doesn’t think that they have any. Maybe politics is what you get when two different “species”/types of entity attempt to negotiate with each other. Single species are otherwise normally ruled/guided by their particular “natural law”. The existence of “politics” is the result of humans having created this other type of life form, with which we now have to work out how to live. Perhaps some insects, ants with their nests etc, do have politics. But not flies! 🙂 Should we be weaning ourselves of dependency on the seductive products of our creations, or should we carry on feeding our creations, like strange children?
PPS. So, in fact, I think you are right, about what to do, because how and what we “feed” these strange/monstrous/difficult/”alien” “children”/creations will determine to a great extent how they behave, what *their* natural law” will be like. At the moment it is almost as if it is they/the large scale entities or lifeforms, which are suffering from addiction, ( or at least as much as us, a direct reflection of their “upbringing” ), because they can’t seem to stop themselves devouring etc. They might “benefit” from a change in attitude and behaviour by us, the cells, to being less devouring ( of them/their output ) aswell! Maybe. 🙂
Finally 🙂 … with ref upbeat ending to my last comments; But the “org-entities” are already the product of thousands of years of our/most human’s generally/perennially insatiable neediness, a picture of individual human desperation/alienation since the dawn of civilisation, a kind of corporate-state version of an Old Testament God; jealous, demanding, ruthless/merciless, despotic,etc. We could maybe do with something like the equivalent of a Christian narrative, the good-news story of a special org-entity, referring to yet higher realities, sacrificing itself for the others, and then rising from the dead, to reduce the fear and devouring behaviour. Or not, seeing how many died as a result of Christian-narrative-driven activity. But how do we break our habit/dependency on the org-entities? Or theirs on us? We seem to be locked into this role play.
Thank you Olivia. I now understand your point.
I am currently working on something referencing absolute vs relative truth and I think that is relevant here. Many theologians insist upon one truth, especially those in the Christian and Islamic traditions, which is why many people refer to Natural Law as God’s Law.
Like the Christian tradition the philosophical approach to Natural Law maintains that there is only one objective, knowable truth. However, unlike religion all that can be known can only be discovered by reason applied to evidence. There is no room for “faith” in this philosophical approach. It is deductive rather than inductive.
The vivid metaphor you provide of the alien creature striding above us, which we create and perpetuate through our addictions, is one of the best analogies for the global corporation I have ever read. Many thanks. However, may I suggest that this organisation of individuals is actually more like a giant robot. That it is “programmed” by a relatively small group of individuals or is steered by this clique. It is not an Alien at all. It is a vehicle for the will, not of the addict, but rather the pusher.
From the addicts perspective it does indeed become god like. It meets the addicts needs and is desired by them. From the pushers perspective it is simply a robot which does their work for them and enabling them to meet their very human objectives.
Natural Law dictates, and can be used to discover, that this is the truth. There are no Aliens, just machines operated by men and women who are themselves subject to exactly the same Natural Law.
Natural Law challenges the addicts faith in the omnipotence of their corporate god. Theology too may point out that these are false idols but would also require that the addict “believe” in a different idol instead.
The philosophical deductive reasoning underpinning Natural Law would reject this and encourage the addict to “understand” the first principles of Natural Law (logic: identity – non contradiction – excluded middle) and use them to see their Alien god for what it truly is. A robot controlled by other, equal, human beings.
Once understood the people could then see that using slave labour to produce their favourite products is “wrong.” That by continue to fuel the robot with their addictions they are allowing the men and women who profit from wrongdoing to continue committing the harm they cause. They must deduce, using Natural Law, that this wrong must be undone and natural justice restored.
The pushers will say if the slaves are freed and they are paid a decent wage for their labour your products will be more expensive. This too is the truth but if they still want to push their products they cannot make them un-affordable for the addicts.
The pushers will have to reconsider their priorities, re program their robot, restructure their activities. Perhaps they won’t survive and the addict won’t get their fix. But while the need remains, in a free market, based upon the principles of Natural Law, someone will find a way to provide the products the addicts crave.
As I tried to stress in the article this will inevitably require a fundamental realignment of all society. We must abandon our addiction to convenience because the cost is most assuredly slavery and immeasurable harm. But I suggest it will not preclude us from building new, more efficient and more just alien robots.
All the best Olivia
A brilliant summary of a philosophy I’ve believed in and tried to live by all of my life. It’s very similar to what Gandhi called ‘Swaraj’ – literally Self Rule.
But it’s only possible if we start by ruling ourselves. That begins with Duty, Responsibility, Honour and Honesty – which are all very unfashionable these days. We proved we had none of them 18 months ago when we let our old people to die alone in 1984 style ‘Care’ Homes.
I’d like to think people will read this, realise how true it is and start evolving gently and peacefully in the right direction. Unfortunately, that’s not how the world works.
People are lazy. They don’t act until they have to, and by then it’s usually too late.
Thank Ian. I agree, that is not how the world we are told to accept works. Therefore those of us who realise this is a sham must make every effort to construct a better one. You are right people are lazy and apathetic. I suggest this has been deliberately fostered. We will all soon live in a dictatorship. If a minority of us are already working towards something better I think the majority have a chance of realising that. Those of us that can really must be the change that we wish to see in the world.
I have no doubt that laziness and apathy have been deliberately fostered. Just as duty, responsibility, honour and honesty have been progressively disparaged to the point most people believe they can only exist in works of fiction.
We’ve been progressively moving towards dictatorship for many years now. As you say, it’s a generational struggle and will likely take as many generations to get out of it as it took to get into it.
The question is, how can we practically help it along in the right direction?
I’ve tried being the change I want to see in the world, but all that’s happened is the number of people who think I’m bonkers increases year-on-year.
I agree with you that the answer lies in real juries operating under Natural Law, but instead of aiming to change the whole system, why not start with local juries in local libraries, Church halls and so-on, arbitrating in civil disputes that would normally be too trivial or too expensive to take to the County Court?
If there’s a market for shows like Judge Judy and Judge Rinder on TV, how about a real live show down your local library, with free heating and free tea for the pensioners, the opportunity to meet people in the local community and even the chance to sit on a jury!
As it’s a new twist on a tired old format you might even get TV companies interested.
And who knows? If the emphasis is more on the drama of sorting things out openly and fairly in your local community, and less on the impenetrable legal mumbo jumbo favoured by professional lawyers and judges, it could catch on. It might even be a business opportunity!
That is a splendid idea and exactly the kind of parallel society operating in the margins I spoke about. We currently have, for example, Sharia Courts in the UK. They have no “legal” authority but they provide Muslims with an effective arbitration service in keeping with their beliefs. We also have a nascent Common Law court system operating in the UK, again in parallel and without any “official” recognition. The solution I suggest would focus upon us using these parallel systems instead of the “official” system.
Pleased you like the idea. Am interested to know more about the nascent Common Law court system. Do you have any links?
Yes, the solution WOULD be focusing on using the ‘parallel’ instead of the official system. The first bridge to cross would be selling it to the public and drawing in customers.
That would be more likely if someone could figure out a way of running it as a business. A bit like the explosion of Comedy Clubs in the 80s. Once someone had figured out how to turn a profit, every town had to have one.
Thanks Ian. here’s a link to the Common Law Courts – https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
German and Spanish Doctors call covid19 a scam and a criminal operation
A group of over 500 medical doctors in Germany called ‘Doctors for Information’ made a shocking statement during a national press conference:
‘THE CORONA PANIC IS A PLAY. IT’S A SCAM. A SWINDLE. IT’S HIGH TIME WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE’RE IN THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL CRIME.’
This large group of medical experts publishes a medical newspaper on 500,000 copies every week, to inform the public about the massive misinformation in the mainstream media. They also organize mass protests in Europe, like the one on August 29, 2020 where 12 million people signed up and several millions actually showed up.
Why do these 500+ medical doctors say the pandemic is a global crime? What do they know, that we don’t?
HUNDREDS OF SPANISH MEDICAL DOCTORS SAY THE PANDEMIC IS PLANNED
In Spain a group of 600 medical doctorscalled ‘Doctors for Truth’, made a similar statement during a press conference.
‘COVID-19 IS A FALSE PANDEMIC CREATED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. THIS IS A WORLD DICTATORSHIP WITH A SANITARY EXCUSE. WE URGE DOCTORS, THE MEDIA AND POLITICAL AUTHORITIES TO STOP THIS CRIMINAL OPERATION, BY SPREADING THE TRUTH.’ (2)
Germany and Spain are just two examples. Similar large groups of hundreds of medical experts exist in countries across the world.
IN THE USA A DOCUMENTARY CALLED PLANDEMIC, WHICH EXPOSES COVID-19 AS A CRIMINAL OPERATION, IS SUPPORTED BY OVER 27,000 MEDICAL DOCTORS!
This comprehensive article about the fake virus is like a reference book.
Keep it handy – when sleepers ask about the TRUTH, this article will answer all their questions.
https://tinyurl.com/nd458kb9
Two countries – Israel and Sweden.
The truth about the jab.
https://tinyurl.com/7tb5psvm
“If we want to live free of the technocratic, neofeudal dictatorship that is being erected around us it is a fools errand to appeal to our so called political leaders. They are the bought and paid for lackeys of the tyrants. Nor can we realistically expect systemic reform. So called representative democracies are so corrupt, so utterly subservient to the will of the stakeholder capitalists that they are beyond salvation.”
I keep saying this to people and it doesn’t seem to penetrate. Maybe if I was a tv reporter with good hair and poise…?
Thanks Arby. All we can do is keep spreading information to those who are in the Covidian Cult. In the meantime we need to get on with the business of living.
Thanks Iain I agree that we are all in deep trouble and I have taken steps to support the freedom cells movement. My only frustration is that it is not progressing fast enough.
I want us to set up alternative schooling outside the brainwashed state system using teachers who are no longer allowed to work through medical tyranny. Children need to understand the fraud and theft inflicted on the masses through their hidden legal fiction “person” unknowingly contracting with lying corporate entities. The Vatican and Crown involvement in our slave status and exploitation needs revealing. Very interesting history indeed.
We need to challenge the system through understanding the corruption of the courts using non-consent wording and documents to nullify their power. Santos Bonacci and Bill Turner throw light on this as do John Smith up your end. This is non-consent at its best I feel.
A few people are trying to establish a local network of “growers” and makers who can use local currency to exchange goods and services within this Smart City as the screws tighten. The problem now in Australia NSW is that we cannot organise offline as “virtuous” people can’t wait to ring the cops if they see a few people gathered. Everyone is suspicious of everyone and isolation is policed ruthlessly as is mask wearing and QR codes. Life is being shrink wrapped to home and the big box stores. People are so ignorant of the reality of what is under their noses. I still hear “when we go back to normal and this virus is gone” .
So.
We need to buy land to get out of this and try and live sustainably with our own village of likeminded people but that is easier said than done. This is where natural justice and jury courts would work well I feel, in a small self reliant community linked node-like to other such villages. I notice stormcloudsgathering did this some time ago in the Dominican Republic.
Perhaps if people looked at the Protocols of Zion it may wake them up. I fear this may be what is unfolding and evil doesn’t come near describing it.
However I am also aware that Agenda 21 intends to drive human habitation off the land into Smart Cities where justice will be non existent and surveillance will mirror North Korea. So we will die fighting to stay on our land probably.
So yes our system is not justice but commerce based and natural law would be a great improvement but would work best in smaller communities where people know each other in some way I think.
Anyway we have Clive Palmer who is going to save us, so she’ll be right.
Susan (ditched the legal fiction sur-name) Su Downunder
Thanks Susan. The solution suggest is certainly worth pursuing and, if I won the lottery, the first thing I would do is buy land precisely for the purpose you suggest. Wherever such communities arise, and I think they will as the demand will be very high (something like a 3rd of under 40’s in the UK do not appear to have been vaccinated), I would be among those interested in joining.
However, as you rightly say, they will be a target for the State. You raise other viable solutions which I think should also go ahead. For example some of us can grow our own food, others have skills they can exchange, perhaps for food. We will have to develop new markets among each other which may be separated geographically but which modern communication technology facilitate. That technology too will have to be decentralised of those lines of communication will simply be cut off.
I suggest that while people labour under the illusion (false hope) of a “return to normal” the demand will remain solely among those who currently understand what is happening. However, I firmly believe that demand will grow significantly. The State will have to maintain its dictatorship using extreme force. This too will create further demand in my view.
The struggle has barely begun in my view.
How to Escape from a Sick Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeliRVZ4V00
Thanks Iain – a great read!
I particularly subscribe to taking responsibility for my own actions, including healthcare, diet, lifestyle.
The concepts of inalienable rights and living in accordance with Natural Law was something I “studied” under Mark Passio.
His three main videos took me over a week to work through. All brilliant – your writings and Mark’s lectures.
However is it enough to just exercise peaceful dissent and noncompliance? Will that alone stop the unfolding population reduction and total enslavement?
This could surely only work if well over half the world’s population were to refuse to comply with the new ‘Covid’ dictats, not the few scattered outlayers that we are.
Feeling rather hopeless.
Thanks GT. Please see my response to Susan.
I appreciate your witnessing as your particular journey within an unfolding of reintegrative appreciations.
As an intuitive, I look for the core patterns that are in a sense systemic to their ‘variants’ in terms of particular parameters.
The dissociation of mind operates as a basis for conflicted reality.
Lawfully (or actually), reality cannot conflict But our modelling or self-image – when taken as a law or reality unto itself, frames us in conflict with reality – which never is any model, image or idol of a symbolic ideal, to which life is then sacrificed as if to thereby attain.
A reader might think – ‘what has this got to do with the usurping of authority by a criminal lawlessness?’. Well, everything!
Competing private agenda is power struggle of competing narratives of appeal of presumption to and possession of right, and justification such as to align or support the (re) enforcement of principle held true.
Establishment of such principles is the Church and State of a collective worth-ship that is currently a state of ideological, legal, financial, and corporate institutional capture by incentivised coercions and deceits.
We may say we don’t share and support the corruptions that delivered us to such an evil or mind set in reversal of true order, but that is how dissociation operates: to say one thing, while doing another.
Spiritual responsibility is for our own alignments and acceptances as choices by which we give and receive or share in life. Our capacity to lockdown judgements as a distancing that masks as virtue is being pointed out to us as an opportunity to let them go. But the nature of the mind of judgement is to regard its reflection as an attack or threat to be eradicated, excommunicated, cast out, wilfully marked for exclusion or at least locked down and managed as a system by which chaos is denied that an ideal order can be regained or remade in its image. This is a mind of dissociation, that literally knows not what it does. Dissociation from truth ‘knows’ something ‘else’ by its own convictions, given and received in place of truth.
This interjection of an enemy image is the device by which to break communication while persisting in its image and form relative to something that is not really here.
That we each project onto one another is the shadow reinforcement of ‘worlds’ that never meet – however long the marriage.
This is not complicated in principle but deeply complex in terms of shifting narratives of internalised rules and filters that are normalised social masking by which a substitute ‘reality’ is ‘shared’ in terms of an agreement to join in the frame of that which ‘saves us’ from exposure of intimacy or transparency.
A world of lies is the result of a mind set in contradictions or conflicts given protection from disclosure.
But WHO told you you were naked?
If you find resonance you can read the rest of this post on:
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/2021/09/natural-law-and-masking-corruption.html
TRUTH
RIDICULE
PARALLEL SOCIETY
SELF ORGANISE
ACTION BY MASSES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09maaUaRT4M
“It is certain today that every honest German is ashamed of their government. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children, when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes – that infinitely outdistance every human measure – reach the light of day.”
Hans Scholl
https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/opposition-to-the-nazis
This is brilliant Ian. I have been thinking along the same lines for years. So, happy to see such a lucid, comprehensive article seeded in the resistance. Well done indeed.
Thanks M.K. Glad you found it interesting.
I do believe that they have a life of their own, are “alien” *life-forms”, not merely robots, that we as a species have created, given birth to, out of our ages-old needs/longings/cravings. Ivan Illich and Michel Foucault both believed that institutions had lives of their own; Ivan Illich in particular argued that it was not possible for the well intentioned to enter the professions of either teaching or medicine and do good work or transform them ( schools or medicine ) from within. He believed that their structures were intrinsically, inherently, inimical to individual humans. The “pushers” are almost all of us, who created these lifeforms over millenia. But they are now more powerful than any individual or small group of individuals. I don’t think that it’s useful to designate/think of any particular individuals as on “the other side”/the enemy or worse than the ( vast majority of the ) rest of us.
I think that so long as most humans have not recognised what their compulsive consumption costs, the real costs and as a result recognised it as addiction, let alone identified the real/true benefits that they obtain from it, ( not just the superficial justification of “the buzz/rush/hit/high” etc but the deep needs that it “satisfies”/comforts etc, they will not be able to break away from this symbiotic stranglehold and perhaps reduce the alien/org-entities’ tendency to devour in their turn.
Humans created the God of the Old Testament, and then revised that authority figure significantly, as a result of new ideas, new needs. We could do the same with our current org-entities, if we felt the need, but at the moment it appears that the majority of humans crave/seek the comfort to be had from a pantheon of increasingly all powerful gods in control of everything.
I think that this might be because we are on the critical and painful cusp 9f discovering or acknowledging that ( contra-causal/meaningful ) free will doesn’t exist and that we are all of us, at all times, in every single action, directed by the universe, ( that is our brains, bodies, genes, conditioning and environment and every bit of the universe up until this moment ). We are always all of us doing our best, because we can do nothing else. We are all of us “doing the universe’s bidding”/All acting according to its “will”.
But so long as the West particularly, but human society in general, continues to believe in and promote the myth of free will, uses that myth to justify so many injustices and abuses and inequalities, humans seem to need to create a facsimile or prosthetic device or dramatic script to reproduce the reality. And the facsimile is naturally monstrous, dread-full.
I wonder how far humans will go in creating this horrific fake universal control by gigantic powerful forces before they realise and accept the truth, that there is no such thing as free will.
PS. And discovering that we don’t have free will is liberating, a total joy, a release. It just doesn’t seem to look that way to most people before they realise. Most people seem to fear the idea. And our current crop of monsters/org-entities is what we conjure up instead, the classic result of running from what you fear …
PPS. To clarify; I think that humans are longing to know/realise that free will doesn’t exist. But the majority of our system/social structures are based on/formed by belief in it, ( and it may have had a very important/useful role in the past, building/strengthening aspects of human civilisation ), and they are very resistant to change. However over the last 60+ years the evidence has been collecting steadily, piling up inexorably, that people’s behaviour is determined by x and y and z and ..etc, and the pressure is now immense to let the full understanding in, but acceptance and integration of that understanding would/will entail enormous upheaval in social systems/structures. In the meantime we create our awful simulcra/substitutes.
Excellent article Iain.
As each of us move away from the State system – with freedom in our hearts – it will surely wither and die. (Weighed down with the heaviness of mendacity and deception). Likely more quickly than any of us can imagine.
Very interesting article!
I was led to your work by watching the interview you did with Rich Hall. I was immediately struck by what you said about Natural Law in the first few minutes of the interview. Not many people seem to be talking about this very important subject and it was very refreshing to hear you discussing it with Richard.
Natural Law is not dependent upon size of population (what is morally right for two people is also correct for 7 billion) or geographical location (anywhere in this universe). Natural Law is in operation whether we are aware of it or not.
Is it not negotiable or transient in any way, (it is immutable and objective).
Unfortunately though, most people believe that our inalienable and immutable Natural Law rights are actually privileges which are open to negotiation and can be taken away if we commit misdeeds (browsing websites containing “misinformation” for example).
We are on the slippery slope to moral relativism. Welcome to the world of solipsism and moral decay (The only rights are the rights that are right for any given individual).
Mark Passio does some very good work on Natural Law among many other freedom related subjects on his website whatonearthishappening.com. He also had a very informative podcast which lasted for a number of years – producing over two hundred episodes. He has also produced many videos which are worth looking at.
Thanks Ditch. I am a familiar with Mark Pasio and his work is an excellent resource/ You may recognise the image of Natural vs Man’s law from one of his lectures. Postmodernism and the solipsistic relativism it is based upon is something I intend to address more in coming articles. I recently had a revealing conversation with someone where I tried and failed to get them to understand that inalienable rights cannot be “removed” only “ignored” by the state. They simply could not grasp that Natural Law and inalienable rights would exist even if we didn’t and absolutely refused to accept that rights were anything other than a human construct.
I’m beginning to really understand what C J Hopkins ( at the Consent Factory blog ), and other writers have been talking about when they describe/refer to the Covid “thing” as a cult or a Religion. Hopkins wrote that the closest parallel that he could think of fir tue current phenomenon was the spread of Christianity, the failing/crumbling/collapsing Roman Empire’s transformation into Christendom, and the systematic demolition/annihilation of the old pagan beliefs and practices and temples etc throughout the European continent and beyond/the “known world”. The word “religion” means “reconnect”, its origins at least in a longing to feel once again fully part of the universe, not alienated from it. An encounter with family member who’s a fervent believer in “Covid” ( the “exceptionally deadly” etc ) the day before yesterday, has shown me just how much it is religious. The Covid Ian cult/religion is answering deep needs in a significant percentage of the population of the failing/crumbling/collapsing Western World and its affiliates/satellites/tribute-nations, the needs of both the powerful and the relatively powerless. I see that I must treat the family member the way that I would the member of a fundamentalist religion or cult. They want this “god”/this faith system, desperately. They are swept up in its glory etc.
And those of us who don’t “believe” are like the Pagans of old, are “on the outside”, in the cold, and quite possibly just as much on the road to irrelevance.
I don’t think that stepping away from state-corporate systems, provisions and services etc is going to make much difference. Nor do I think that references to the oldest Natural Law will have any effect, any more than the old Pagan beliefs in Natural Law did faced with the spread of the new paradigm carried by Christendom, which lasted from 300/500AD until 1500 ( the Reformation )/1700ish ( the “Enlightenment” ), over 1000 years. Things might move faster now, with modern tech, the internet etc, but they might nor.
Who knows what humans ( and human society ) will be like after a thousand years of the many and various pharmacological and genetic interventions of a runaway biosecurity state/world order.
Spot on Olivia and C.J Hopkins three articles were excellent. Like Hopkins I don’t think we can change the mindset of the Covidian cult with reason. As you say for many it has very quickly become a faith. That is why, in the article, I stress that those of us who know Covid is BS must construct a parallel society. I don’t think we will have much choice. The alternative is to accept Covidianism. However if we demonstrate that our society can thrive in freedom, peace and justice that is the best hope, in my view, of frankly “waking people up.”
Just seen your reply. Thanks! Yes! 🙂
PS. Just realising too that arguing with a Covidian about the data, the facts etc is probably remarkably similar to what it was like trying to persuade a Christian in 500AD that the Gospel story is just that, a story, a rigorously selected composite of myth, metaphor, spiritual teaching tools, engaging soap-opera-character arcs, and propaganda; deliberate, carefully constructed elements aimed at appealing to different target groups. Even today most Christians, (even some non’Christians ), believe that the person described in the Gospels existed. That is how persistently persuasive a fiction, cleverly crafted, can be. On the other hand that fiction was based on a radical insight into our perception and experience of reality, arrived at over the previous 600 years in India and Greece and brought to fruition in the Middle East. I can’t right now think of any new and revolutionary truth at the heart of the Covidian fiction. lol
PPS. It has just occurred to me, however, that in a thousand or two thousand years time, from that far future perspective, it is possible that it could seem to people that the kernel of revolutionary insight/truth contained in or driving the Covidian empire was the discovery of DNA, of genes, etc ( in the previous few hundred years starting with Mendel ) and the glorious visions of almost limitless alteration/”improvement”/transformation etc conjured up by the resultant new tech of genetic engineering. And that the Covidian cult/regime was an essential vehicle for the use and spread of that tech etc, as people argue that Christianity was for certain social developments that we now take for granted.
And where are the Pagans now?
It could well be Olivia. I am not one of those who suggest that these are the “end days.” I see this transformation as exactly that. In many ways I think we have an opportunity and the period of transition is something we should grasp with both hands.
However, left to “their” devices the global public private partnership pushing this agenda do not envisage a better society for all. I am certain of that. Therefore we must resist the form of transformation they propose while embracing transformation itself, in my view.
I’m no Luddite. We cannot un-invent what already exists and we can use it in a more constructive less harmful way, but only if we first reject and resist how it is being applied to us right now.
It seems to me that one of the most important things to do is to leave a trace, as ineradicable as possible, of other points of view, other truths, other perspectives on the Covidian Revolution, and life, the universe and everything, free from Covidian group think, as the appendix in our gastrointestinal tract, so long erroneously considered a vestigial/atrophied remnant of a defunct organ, does with samples of all our essential gastrointestinal fauna and flora/microbiome, so that after catastrophic diarrhoea or other intestinal devastation, the body has a reserve/back-up “file”/”seed bank” to draw on for all those bacteria etc that it relies on for healthy full digestion and absorption of nutrients. Where or how can one now safely store dissenting thought, so that it might be found again in 1000+ years, intact?
I posted a comment earlier about the importance of creating an “appendix” for dissenting thought, capable of withstanding 1000+ years of Covidian regime etc, but it seems to have got lost. ?
Will check Olivia. I think I’ve posted all of your comments.
Did you know you can set your own court up in any court in the land (U.K.), presided over by a judge or a magistrate, put your case, make your claim & impose penalties to be enforced by the court authorities on those who have wronged you – as long as the evidence you produce is strong enough to win your case?
There are divorce courts, equity courts, ecclesiastical courts, high courts, crown courts, appeal courts, county courts, petty sessions, supreme courts etc. Why not Your Court? You’ve heard of the expression ‘to hold court’? Where do you think it comes from? Any man or woman can hold court.
Check it out – https://thesovereignsway.com/author/greg/
Thanks Willie. I am familiar with the principles of the Common Law Court. – https://www.commonlawcourt.com/
Yes we can establish our own courts to manage our own affairs. However, we cannot anticipate that these will ever be “recognised” by the legal system, the current judiciary or the political establishment. While failure to recognise the validity of the Common Law Court is unlawful we must be realistic and understand that the “establishment” does not care about the law.
Their legal system is not designed to deliver justice only to serve the interests of the establishment. That is what their legal system is for. It is a place of business where might is right and nothing more.
But, as long as we understand that, then yes I am all for creating common law courts.
Sorryantivaxxer.com go read,get the vax before covid gets you,you moron
OK. Well thank you for your valuable contribution. You can carry on submitting comments if you like but you will be wasting your keyboard warrior skills. They won’t be posted. Please see my previous response here: – https://iaindavis.com/9-11-truth-is-not-a-matter-of-perspective/
I take it from your response on this post that you aren’t actually threatening me with violence, just waffling. I wish you all the best.
In the following paragraph, change out the word “they” for ‘how’. “People live apathetic lives, labouring under the illusion that they cannot “change anything.” They actually believe that they need to devolve their individual responsibility to trusted authorities. They do so in the unavailing hope THEY some benevolent State parent will care for them while they get on with their normal, everyday lives, imagining themselves to be free.”
Many thanks. Done.
A great deal here to take in. Many thanks. Just to pick up on one small part of it:
“We should note that Swiss intelligence agencies are already warning of attacks on vaccine distribution infrastructure. Reporting how devastating they will be, despite admitting they have “no tangible indications of planned attacks.”
…reminds me that I was emailed by one of the petitioning organisations to sign a petition calling for “control zones” (or some such) around schools, to protect children, staff, parents, whoever, from allegedly “violent anti-vaxx protestors”.
Now, I’ve not heard of a single actual report of any such protest near a school, violent or otherwise. However, I’m sure that petitioning organisation has a wide email distribution, so the seed of the idea that “anti-vaxxers” are potentially “violent” will have been sown in the minds of recipients, regardless of its relationship to the truth.
(I rarely sign petitions these days, but I haven’t bothered to remove myself from these mailing lists).
Just a word on courts: I read not long ago, that a Judge sitting in an English or Welsh court (I don’t know about Scottish) is technically the representative of the crown, and this is why the royal arms are displayed in court. (So the idea of an independent judiciary is yet more official baloney).
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-traditions/
(Oh, I notice that judges still carry the “black cap” for ceremonial occasions….now there’s a comforting thought!)
Best wishes,
Mike
Thank you Iain, for the sanity-preserving and lucid writing I’ve found on UK Column and now here. I, being almost like a cocaine-addled monkey in a Skinner box, am possessed of a nature that demands instant gratification, immediate vindication of judgement, and the prospect of a tangible reward in the very near future in exchange for whatever labour. I will restrict that impulse to the horse racing if I can. This helped immensely in understanding that this is a “long game” which may not bear fruit in one’s own lifetime. I think anyone who plants a seed of a tree understands this on a very fundamental level. Reading this, as well as the “Theft of the Global Commons” series (never mind UK Column) has given me strength to go on, to do what is in my power to also plant a seed in a fertile mind hopefully. Thank you for that. (I think!)
Lol. Thanks for the amusing and encouraging comment Sasha. I hope you will continue to comment on my articles and, perhaps in a year or so, you can see if you are still willing to thank me.
Iain. Thanks for this article which is superbly argued and I have recommended it more than once on the site TCW For Freedom. I have one question on ‘alienable rights’. You quote Mr Spooner on ‘Natural Law’ as asserting that there is no higher law than this. I ask, is not Natural Law as he, and I believe yourself view it, in effect really God’s law as set out, for example in the Old Testament 10 Commandments and re-asserted and interpreted by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament?
Thus there is nothing ‘higher’ than this, namely to love one’s neighbour as oneself. This is set out as the requirement to govern all relationships with others.
Historically I believe this whole corpus of law as based upon the Christian revelation in the NT is that which we historically called our Common law – a tradition and practice which characterised Englis (British) history for centuries – but now largely abandoned.
Iain. I left a comment here earlier today which seems to have disappeared!
I commended this article and your incisive comments on inalienable rights with which I fully agree.
I mentioned your quote from Mr Spooner about Natural Law and asked whether this really approximates to our own English (British) Common Law which is in my view a beautifully simple general principle that served us well for years, namely: All is permitted, unless our actions harm others, or if they violate statute law.
Mr Spooner’s view is that there is no higher law than Natural law, and I asked the following question in response. ‘Is not the law of God, whether seen in Old Testament terms of the 10 commandments or in the New Testament teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, higher than any human law?
Surely this must be the case?
Thus I think our Common law is really based on biblical Christian principles summarised in the simple:
‘Love your neighbour as you love yourself’, and is therefore a perfect moral guide for all our relationship with others.
Thus our inalienable rights really derive from God himself and it is for this reason these are beyond the power of governments or any human authority to annul.
To take an example in the current context: It is an ‘unalienable right’ (as well as the law of the land) to enjoy free movement within our country, again within the obvious constraints of other’s private
property rights forbidding trespass etc. For the first time in our history our government is seeking to limit our freedom of movement via the so called Covid ‘passport’ scheme, and as we know other governments (Austria & Australia) have fully developed these draconian restrictions on our inalienable rights.
To conclude. Would we not say therefore that our inalienable rights are God given and higher is authority than all other laws? I would be grateful for your comment.
Thanks
Graham Wood
Thanks Graham. Before I respond just to let you know that I have to manually approve all comments. When you type one you will see it until you refresh the page and then it will disappear until I approve it. So that all relies upon me logging in which I do most days. But a lag is unavoidable I’m afraid. If I automatically approved comments this would not be a very pleasant site to visit.
Yes, I think Natural Law and Gods Law are essentially the same thing. I think people should be free to call it whatever they like. It is reasonable to say that ‘love thy neighbour as you love yourself” a is a dictum that is true for both Natural Law and God’s law. If you want to say that Natural law is based upon God’s law I would have no problem with that. All I would add is that both Natural Law and God’s Law are infinite and eternal and yet very simple to understand.
Equally, saying inalienable rights are God given seems fine to me. It is a matter of faith. As an atheist who doesn’t deny the spiritual element of all consciousness (individual and universal) I agree, our rights come from one abiding truth.
Such a good article Iain….I have read this particular article a fair number of times now,I find it inspiring.Iain I live a very peaceful life…I wish all Peace to all….A lot of which you speak of throughout your article sits very well with me…I fully believe we(human society)could change the trajectory of the current path we are being somewhat forced to move along by using our natural laws and rights…..really great article Iain…..Peace
Peace Joseph,